By Sam Sherwood of RNZ
Standing at the podium inside the Beehive’s theatre after acknowledging there had “interference at the highest levels of police” in relation to a woman’s accusations of sexual assault by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming, Police Commissioner Richard Chambers acknowledged a group of police officers who “did stand up and challenge what was happening here”.
“I thank them for their courage, for the leadership and the integrity they showed in doing so.”
The IPCA’s report also dedicates a section to several police officers under a heading “Officers who displayed commendable integrity and moral courage”.
Here is a look at the staff who spoke up.
When former Deputy Police Commissioner Tania Kura finally decided to explore the former unsworn staffer’s allegations, she and Assistant Commissioner A agreed to bring in Officer D.
The IPCA report does not name Officer D, but RNZ understands it’s Detective Inspector Nicola Reeves – one of the country’s most senior adult sexual assault investigators who has worked on a number of high-profile cases including the murder of Christchurch real estate agent Yanfei Bao.
The terms of reference for the investigation did not instruct Reeves to speak to Ms Z.
Reeves showed the terms of reference to her supervisor, Territorial Detective Superintendent Darryl Sweeney. He was so concerned by what he read he contacted the other two Territorial Detective Superintendents and told them.
Sweeney told the IPCA that when Reeves spoke to him in September there were several features of the case that struck him as unusual.
This included that no senior reviewing officer had been assigned to the investigation, and that usually an investigation like the one being conducted would have been resourced with about four other staff but it was only Reeves.
He also said Reeves should not have had a reporting line directly to Assistant Commissioner A, and the police executive should not have had a role in managing it.
Reeves met with Kura and Assistant Commissioner A in Wellington on July 26, 2024.
She told them she couldn’t continue without speaking to Ms Z and asked for their permission.
She said the meeting was “strange”, and that when she pointed out the investigation fell outside usual policy for such investigations Assistant Commissioner A asked where in policy it said police had to speak to the complainant.
She contrasted the discussion with usual police practice.
“If we get wind of anything, any kind of complaint, that’s what the police do. We would contact someone and go: ‘Hey what’s going on. Is there something that you want to talk about?’ You know we can’t always be waiting for people to come to us, and you know having sat in that adult sexual assault chair for so long we get lots of complaints that actually come through from other people that go: ‘Look you need to talk to my friend. She was raped by so and so’ or whatever … I know that this is our obligation, and look I don’t know that it’s actually written in black and white anywhere, you know that that’s what we do.”
She said Assistant Commissioner A repeated on a number of occasions that McSkimming had applied for the top job and that if things weren’t sorted quickly he wouldn’t get it.
“I personally think it should be very simple in every police officer’s world. Doesn’t matter who the hell you are. We speak to the person, take a complaint and investigate it. It’s all very simple,” Reeves told the IPCA.
Operation Herb was closed on September 24 by Assistant Commissioner A.
Reeves told the IPCA such files were “never truly closed”, and that police could take action at any time.
Reeves remained leading the inquiry when Operation Jefferson, the criminal investigation into McSkimming, began in October last year.
It was during that investigation that police found the objectionable material on his work devices and a second criminal investigation began.
It was Reeves who told the Independent Police Conduct Authority that the handling of the allegations prior to her involvement in the case was “appalling”.
“We have just not followed policy whatsoever and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist … Jevon has tried to get rid of this by making a complaint and … making [Ms Z] the villain, when in actual fact what he perhaps should have done was gone: ‘Can someone look at this and investigate it and get it cleared up? Because I’ve got designs on the future, and I want my integrity intact, so I welcome an investigation. Let’s get it cleared up, get it out of the way’.
“But you know what’s the worst thing – if you make a mistake … the only worse thing that you can do is then cover it up … You can paint all sorts of nice words of this … but to an outsider looking in, and … I mean even me, this looks like a cover-up.”
The IPCA acknowledged the “extraordinarily difficult environment” in which Reeves was working when she was tasked under Operation Herb.
“We commend her courage in insisting on the need to speak to the complainant, Ms Z, when speaking with Deputy Commissioner Kura and Assistant Commissioner A.
“As an experienced adult sexual assault investigator, she has shown insight into what a policy-compliant investigation should look like, and the reasons why her initial investigation should have looked no different.
“She was also able to identify what many senior officers were not - that a traumatised victim who has been told she will not be listened to if she tries to approach Police, may not present as a regular victim ‘should’ and that the emails Ms Z was sending may have reflected the desperation of someone emailing into the ‘abyss’, having not been heard for several years prior.”
The IPCA said had it not been for the actions of another police officer, Officer M, it was “conceivable that Ms Z’s complaint may never have been heard, and the IPCA may never have been made aware of the concerning developments during 2024.”
RNZ understands Officer M is Detective Superintendent Kylie Schaare, the director of Integrity and Conduct.
She told the IPCA that on September 16 last year, she received a call from then Police Commissioner Andrew Coster asking if she knew of any “open investigations” into McSkimming.
She believed the call was prompted by McSkimming’s application for Commissioner. She told Coster she would check the NZ Police Professional Conduct database.
She told the IPCA she saw a “huge organisational risk” that there was something “sitting outside our system”.
“... It didn’t appear that we’d actually dealt with that at all following our usual process, and that I was now aware that the woman had been arrested, pleaded not guilty and I said ‘look, with…my legal experience … any defence lawyer worth their salt is going to say that … this woman has acted the way she has because she’s been trying to raise these concerns for a significant period of time against Police and no one’s listened to her and no one’s followed usual process’ so I said: ‘That’s all going to come out … That’s a matter of risk to the police, it’s a risk to you as Commissioner”.
Following the call she texted Coster and said there were no “open complaints” that were visible in the database.
“The complaints re the woman that you’ve referenced have not been through our usual complaint processes though, and there is no record of the complaints or what has been done re them. I do see this as a risk to the New Zealand Police and Jevon, particularly if this issue arises again down the track.”
She suggested the information around the complaint and what had been done was provided to either her or the Operations Manager of Integrity and Conduct to record in the database.
“I am conscious with a not guilty plea entered on the charges the woman is facing, the complaints could come to light through the court process as part of the defence disclosure request or the woman may complain again in the future, particularly if Jevon is in the media. It would open up criticism if there is nothing recorded in the usual manner following our complaint processes. IPCA are also asking why this has bypassed our usual complaint processes. They were going to contact Tania directly to discuss.”
Coster replied he understood from Kura’s briefing that the “intent” was to record it as Schaare suggested but was “unsure why this has not yet occurred”.
“To be clear, I don’t think there was ever a complaint. The woman never identified herself to us. However, through Jevon’s transparency on it we knew who she was and proactively approached her. However, there was still no complaint forthcoming to back up her various email allegations sent from a variety of email addresses with made-up names. I appreciate your follow up on that.”
Schaare later contacted the IPCA over concerns she had.
On October 8 she had a meeting with the authority and expressed the nature of her concerns.
On October 9 the Public Service Commission contacted the IPCA and asked if there were any complaints relating to the applicants for Commissioner.
The following day the IPCA Chair emailed Coster asking that police refer any complaints regarding McSkimming to them.
It was then that Ms Z’s complaint was referred by Officer M. That same day Schaare emailed Deputy Commissioner PLC and said she had opened a file on the database. She had also been informed that Ms Z had contacted Reeves and was considering making a complaint.
The IPCA informed police on October 14 they had categorised the matter as Category A, an independent investigation.
Schaare then got a call from Deputy Commissioner PLC who said Coster was not happy about the IPCA’s involvement.
The IPCA said Schaare raised her concerns both within her own internal chain of command and with the IPCA from an early stage.
“When she felt her concerns were not being heeded, she sought our support in elevating the matter. We commend her moral courage.”
A report by the joint Police/Health Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) in February 2024 identified that emails allegedly sent by the woman raised potential criminal and Police Code of Conduct concerns relating to McSkimming and recommended referring them to the National Integrity Unit and IPCA with a view to possible investigation.
The IPCA acknowledged the efforts of FTAC’s Officer O, who when being assigned with looking through the emails was able to “identify, and draw to the attention of senior officers, allegations of both criminal offending and breaches of the Police Code of Conduct”.
“Through his efforts, his supervisor, Officer N, was then able to brief senior officers, including Deputy Commissioner Kura and Officer B, on the need to look at the matter from two different perspectives – action to stop the emails, and an investigation into their veracity.
“Had FTAC’s advice been heeded in February, many of the issues raised in this report would have been avoided, and a more balanced consideration of the respective interests of Deputy Commissioner McSkimming and Ms Z may have been adopted.”
On October 30, two days before the National Integrity Unit had their first “forensic interview” of Ms Z, Coster called a meeting. At the meeting was Kura, Deputy Commissioner PLC, the Director, Police Legal Services, Schaare and Officer K of the NIU.
Coster then proposed a “special national assessment team” to look into the appropriate investigative pathway in relation to Ms Z’s complaint. He suggested the team consist of himself and Kura.
At the meeting the director of police legal services said it was not appropriate, given the conflicts of interest, for Coster and Kura to be involved in decisions on criminality.
The IPCA commended the director for “directly standing up to Commissioner Coster” in the meetings “to ensure the new investigation structure was robust and free from actual or perceived conflicts of interest”.
-RNZ